MIKE Portal

REPORT ON A MEETING HELD IN OUAGADOUGOU

Report on the meeting to launch the implementation of MIKE in West Africa

OUAGADOUGOU, BURKINA FASO

19-21 February 2001

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background on elephants in West Africa

1.2 Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)

1.3 First meeting to discuss MIKE in West Africa

2. TECHNICAL ISSUES

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Savanna

2.3 Forest

2.4 Carcass reports

2.5. Measuring law enforcement effort

2.6. Data flow and analysis

3. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MIKE IN WEST AFRICA

3.1 Site selection

3.2 Current situation at each site

3.2.1 Human resources and logistics

3.2.2 Survey updates

3.3 Structure and coordination

3.3.1 Continental level

3.3.2 Sub-regional, national and site levels

3.3.3 Roles and responsibilities

4. DECISIONS TAKEN

5. THE NEXT STEPS

6. ANNEXES

1. INTRODUCTION

From 19 to 21 February 2001 a meeting was held in Ouagadougou to launch officially the implementation of the MIKE programme (Monitoring the illegal killings of elephants) in West Africa. The meeting, organised by IUCN-BRAO (Regional Office for West Africa) on behalf of the CITES Secretariat, took place in the Conference Room of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Financial assistance from the Japanese Government made this meeting possible.

All of the elephant range States in West Africa, with the exception of Liberia and Sierra Leone, were present. (see Annex 1). The Director-designate of MIKE, Mr. Nigel Hunter, was present. The purpose of the meeting was to establish the practical and organisational framework for the implementation of the MIKE programme in West Africa.

At the opening ceremony, welcome speeches were given by Dr. Malan Lindeque, Chief of the Scientific Coordination Unit of the CITES Secretariat and Mr. Ibrahim Thiaw, Regional Representative of IUCN in West Africa, who co-presided over the meeting. In his opening speech (Annex 2) on behalf of the State Minister for Water and Environment, Mr. Dabiré, Permanent Secretary, expressed his hope that the protection of the elephant would be reinforced in Burkina Faso through the ongoing decentralisation process, by reviewing the existing legislation and by reinforcing the direct participation of the population in wildlife conservation.

A set of documents was handed out to the Participants to complement their information (See Annex 3).

1.1 Background on elephants in West Africa

Elephants lost more than 90% of their range in West Africa during the 20th century. Today there are 56 elephant populations in the sub-region, most of which are small and isolated. Habitat loss, drought, and poaching for ivory are the main threats to these populations. In 1999 representatives of the range States of the sub-region drew up a Strategy for the Conservation of West African Elephants. The strategy’s goal is to ensure the conservation of elephants and their habitats in the sub-region. The activities prescribed by the strategy will address three main objectives: (1) to evaluate the status of elephants in the sub-region; (2) to maintain and where possible increase elephant populations; and (3) to improve habitats for elephants. This strategy illustrates the commitment of governments and NGOs to conserving elephants in the sub-region. Several governments have already moved on to the next stage to prepare elephant conservation strategies at the national level.

1.2 Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)

At the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in 1997, a resolution was passed calling for the establishment of a comprehensive international system to monitor the illegal killing of elephants (Resolution Conf. 10.10). This Resolution [now Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16) (Rev.)] was slightly revised at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties and the support for this programme was reaffirmed.

The objectives of the proposed monitoring system are: to determine current trends in illegal killing of elephants; to determine changes in these trends over time; to determine the causes of those trends; to integrate appropriate analyses of such information with that of the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) to assist decision-making by range States and other Parties to CITES.

Among other matters, the resolution stipulates that the monitoring system should monitor relevant parameters such as the pattern and scale of illegal killing, and the effort and resources applied to detect or prevent such killing. It should also build institutional capacity within the range States for the long-term management of their elephant populations. The resolution instructs the CITES Secretariat, with the participation of the African and Asian Specialist Groups of IUCN/SSC and TRAFFIC, to select sites for monitoring as representative samples; to develop a standardized methodology for data collection and analysis; to provide training at the selected sites and to CITES Management Authorities of elephant range States; and collate and process all data. Thus the resolution provides a means by which range States, with the assistance of the CITES secretariat, can develop the necessary skills to effectively manage their elephant populations.

The MIKE programme is divided into six sub-regions, four in Africa and two in Asia. Forty-five sites have been selected in Africa (see below), with 16 in West Africa. In June 1999 a pilot phase started in Central Africa. Full MIKE implementation is currently underway.

1.3 First meeting to discuss MIKE in West Africa

A three-day meeting in Accra, Ghana in December 1999 brought together representatives of the wildlife authorities from the range States in West Africa. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the implementation of MIKE in the sub-region, to evaluate resources available in each country, identify training needs, and agree on a method for sub-regional coordination. The meeting agreed that IUCN Regional Office for West Africa in Ouagadougou should adopt the role of coordination at the sub-regional level. At this stage, CITES had raised funds sufficient for implementation of the programme in only half the selected sites in the sub-region. Therefore eight out of the 16 sites were selected for the pilot phase of implementation. It was expected that the programme would be implemented at the other sites when funds became available. The participants affirmed their respective governments’ full support for MIKE.

2. TECHNICAL ISSUES

2.1 Introduction

Two types of data will be collected during the MIKE project: (a) surveys will be undertaken periodically (probably every two years) to estimate elephant numbers. Because elephant ranges fall into two broad vegetation types: forest and savanna, aerial surveys will be used in the savanna, and dung counts in the forest. Secondly, (b) data on illegal activity and law enforcement effort will be collected continuously by personnel on the ground in each site, through patrolling as well as the compilation of other information applicable to each site.

In each case, the methods will be standardised and data will be collected in a strictly prescribed manner on data forms. Formal training sessions will be carried out in the next stage of MIKE implementation to train field teams and site officers the relevant data collection methods and techniques.

Each site must have a distinctive name and a well-defined boundary on the ground. Each patrol and each survey must have a unique identification code that will ensure it can be recognised in the database that will eventually include data from 60 sites on two continents. The identification code must include the site, the date, and perhaps a code for the patrol leader.

A GIS database will be established for each site. The GIS will create maps to be used in the field and for analysing the distribution of elephants, carcasses and patrol effort against other factors such as land use, human settlement patterns, etc.

2.2 Savanna

The data-collection form for monitoring information on the ground was reviewed. This form will be used by all personnel who go out into the field, such as patrols, researchers, mechanics inspecting pumps or dams, guides accompanying tourists, etc. A sheet of instructions and definitions accompanies the form.

The participants were asked to provide substantive feedback on the forms so that their comments could be incorporated in subsequent changes to the MIKE data protocols. The participants then commented on details of the form layout. It was suggested that there should be a place to mark the habitat type during the course of the patrol, since vegetation affects visibility. There should be a space to note the purpose of the patrol and a space for the site officer’s comments later. It was suggested that because a patrol-day is defined as six hours of patrolling and it is known that guards often patrol for less, therefore a site that was patrolled for 4 hours a day every day would emerge from the final analysis as being unprotected. Two options were suggested: (a) change the definition, for example so that a patrol-day was defined as four hours or more; (b) express effort in terms of patrol-hours.

It was suggested that grid-squares of 5 km x 5 km might be too large, especially in rough terrain, and that it may be better to use smaller grid. Squares that are one minute of latitude or longitude (i.e. just under 2 km by 2 km) would be convenient since GPS units will be used in the field by patrols.

Some wildlife departments already collect some of the data requested on this form. Others may want to collect information in addition to that required for MIKE. The CITES Secretariat saw no reason why forms should not be adapted to record additional information at the site level.

Participants felt that space should be made so that live elephants could be recorded, because at present the data sheet for ground patrols only covers only dead animals.

The forms require that guards record latitude and longitude, but it was felt that the programme should not rely entirely on new technologies like the GPS and Cybertracker. Batteries expire, and electronic equipment may fail, so guards should still be taught the old skills of map-reading and navigation in the bush. Therefore working maps are still essential tools. It was suggested that pedometers could be issued to record distance covered by patrols.

The monthly summary report for the savanna zone was reviewed. In addition to summarising the regular ground patrol forms, this provides data on expenditure on law enforcement during the month, as well as staff and transport available. It was pointed out that annual site summaries would also be required.

2.3 Forest

Dung counts will be the principal means of evaluating elephant densities in the forest zone. Some people doubt the efficacy of dung counts, but a recent review has shown that for a range of vertebrates, including elephants, dung counts are as accurate a means of estimating animal numbers as any other survey technique. A brief overview of dung count methodology was presented. A model that was developed in southern Ghana can be used to convert estimates of dung density to elephant density. The model takes variations in rainfall into account and will have to be verified in the other countries in the forest zone.

The ground patrol forms to be used in the forest zone were reviewed: (1) the field patrol authorisation (ordre de mission), (2) daily patrol report, (3) elephant carcass and ivory report (see Carcass reports below), (4) field patrol summary and debriefing report, (5) daily road checkpoint report, and (6) intelligence monitoring. Each is accompanied by a sheet of instructions. Instead of a monthly report, as in the savanna, a three-monthly report for each site has been proposed for the forest zone.

The participants noted that there are differences between the savanna and forest forms, even though they are for the most part asking for the same information. The differences are partly due to the exigencies of working under different conditions, but also due to their being produced by field teams and technical contributors working independently in the eastern and southern African savannas and the central African forests. The Director designate undertook to harmonize forms to the greatest extent possible, in collaboration with the MIKE TAG

2.4 Carcass reports

The carcass report was then reviewed. One form is to be completed for each dead elephant, using instructions provided. Carcass reports should be standardised between the forest and savanna reports. It was emphasised that the exact location must be specified to avoid multiple reporting of the same carcass. It was noted that sometimes animals are shot within a park but die outside (or vice versa), perhaps several days later.

The current data sheets allow consideration for the fact that elephant carcasses may be found outside but nearby the formal MIKE site. It was suggested that these mortality records will have to be taken into account in the analysis of data.

2.5 Measuring law enforcement effort

A presentation was given on law enforcement and measures of effort, in which it was emphasized that counts of carcasses alone are meaningless but can reveal trends in poaching activity when corrected for patrolling effort. The relationships between poaching rates and measures of protection were illustrated. In addition to providing information on illegal killing, park wardens can improve the efficiency of their law-enforcement by undertaking simple analyses of their patrol data.

Intelligence is often the most cost-effective form of law-enforcement, and intelligence-gathering and patrolling can together result in very effective protection. It was also pointed out that communities living around a protected area can become valuable allies. Local participation can improve protection of an area when the communities organise themselves to provide intelligence on poachers coming from elsewhere. Indeed, collaboration of surrounding communities can be a good index of performance of a protected area, and it was encouraging that many delegates reported that park managers were actively engaged with the surrounding communities.

The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) for the monitoring of legal and illegal trade in elephant specimens was described in a brief presentation, emphasizing its complementary role to MIKE. The Secretariat has been informed that TRAFFIC as coordinating body for ETIS is planning to hold a separate meeting in the sub-region to assist Parties with the implementation of this programme.

2.6 Data Flow and Analysis

Data will be collected on the appropriate form at each site. The site officer will complete these forms and he/she will pass them to the national officer at regular intervals. The national officer will collect forms from each site in his/her country and transmit them to the CITES Central Coordination Unit. This will probably be in electronic form but possibly as raw data sheets as well. The data should be computerised at the site level to facilitate as much local analysis and use as possible. Copies of the data will be kept at each stage, i.e. at the site, national, and Central Coordination Unit. Analyses will likely be performed at the site, sub-regional and continental level. Clearly, it would be desirable if each site officer could analyse the data collected at his/her site. This would also be helpful to park managers and wildlife authorities at both the local and national level.

3. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MIKE IN WEST AFRICA

3.1 Site selection

The MIKE sites were selected by a statistical process that took a number of criteria into account (see box below) in order to produce a representative sample of sites. The participants were informed that sites can not be changed, increased in size or dropped without disturbing the built-in balance of the formal MIKE site list. Any additions or deletions from the list would need to be considered in this light.

MIKE site selection criteria:

Sub-region

Forest and savanna

High and low law enforcement effort

Inside and outside protected areas

With and without recent or on-going civil strife in or around the site

Close to or distant from an international border

Availability of existing data prior to 1990

Relatively large elephant populations for the sub-region

With and without a history of illegal killing in the area

Government co-operation

Long tenure of existing staff in key positions

Single agency control over site management

Involved in either CITES Decision 10.1, 10.2 or both

Varying levels of community involvement in conservation.

The range States established a long list of candidate sites in early 1998. Using that list, and following the criteria above, the selection process produced a list of 45 sites for Africa, of which 16 were in West Africa. This list was discussed with the participants at the first Regional MIKE meeting held in December 1999 in Accra. At that time, due to financial restrictions, eight sites were selected to be monitored during the pilot phase of the MIKE programme. Since then, more financial resources have been guaranteed and they will be able to start their work simultaneously at all sites. The full list of 16 sites in the region was reviewed again by the participants and some minor corrections were made.

Several possible additional changes were also suggested by the country representatives present. Primarily, the suggested changes involved the inclusion of neighbouring areas of elephant range, some of which fall under different management authorities. These included: areas around Park "W" in Niger and Burkina Faso, areas in Guinea-Conakry adjacent to Niokolo-Koba, areas adjacent to Pendjari (Benin), the Alfa Kwara hunting area adjacent to the "W" National Park in Benin, the Nigerian side of the Baban Rafi site and a potential alternative site for Fosse aux Lions in Togo. The CITES Secretariat noted these suggestions and agreed to look into the technical, statistical and financial implications of the proposed changes. (See Annex 4)

3.2 Current situation at each site

The current situation at each site was reviewed by the participants to get a precise idea about available equipment, methods of patrolling and human resources available, as well as complementary needs and training requirements. In addition, the participants provided an update on the status of population surveys in each site.

3.2.1 Human resources and logistics

In an overview of the in-kind contributions of the range State authorities to the implementation of MIKE, participants were asked to give a short presentation on the following points:

Level of current staffing

Details of patrol efforts

Available equipment and transport

Training requirements

Partners involved

An inventory was produced to establish existing human resources and equipment at the site level (see Annex 5). This overview revealed that both patrol efforts and the resources available for their implementation differ greatly from site to site. Nonetheless, on some sites there is a regular system of extensive patrolling in place. Most of the management systems described have involved village guards in their law enforcement activities. Equipment available differs greatly from one site to another: some sites are very well equipped, e.g. Niokolo Koba, but most others have no vehicles in good functioning order and only rudimentary support facilities.

3.2.2 Survey updates

In a very useful exercise, the participants were asked to provide information on the most recent surveys including: the types of surveys and the identity of those responsible for conducting the survey at each site. (see Annex 6)

It was noted that in some cases no recent surveys have been carried out at the sites, that types of surveys carried out vary greatly from site to site and that the source of the survey data is in many cases unknown. For example, the Marahoue site has not been surveyed since 1981, Fosse aux Lions was surveyed in 1990, Sapo in 1989 and Mole in 1993. The Niger and Benin parts of the Parc "W" site have also not been surveyed simultaneously in recent years, while no systematic surveys at all have been carried out in Sambissa, Baban Rafi, Sahel Burkinabé or Taï. The source for the survey data was provided only for Mole, Kakum, Parc "W" Niger and Benin and the Pendjari site.

In conclusion, the participants outlined the proposed breakdown of contributions from both CITES and the range State governments. These are summarised in the table below.

Contributions from CITES/MIKE

Contributions from range State Governments

Extensive training

Foster external political support
(e.g. donors)

Cybertracker and other new technologies

Build internal political support
(e.g. Perm. Sec., Ministers, etc.)

Computer for site analysis

Provision of sites

Some basic field equipment

Provision of staff
– high level (i.e. Directors)
– site level (i.e. officer at site and

observers /data

Cost of extensive population survey work

Continue their current support to sites:
– transport
– field allowance
– accommodation

Assistance with data handling and analysis

Coordination with ongoing initiatives at the site level

Assistance with implementation by the CITES Secretariat

Assistance with donor coordination

3.3 Structure and co-ordination

MIKE is a complicated project that will cover 45 sites on the African continent. Therefore it is important to clarify procedures and co-ordination early in the project. Mr. Hunter provided background information on the proposed structure and co-ordination of MIKE at all levels.

3.3.1 Structure at the continental and global levels

Mr Hunter presented the structure of MIKE at the continental and global levels. MIKE will have an hierarchical structure, with data passed from the site it is collected to the national level, and then to the sub-regional level and finally to the central data unit where it will be stored in the database.

3.3.2 Structure at the sub-regional, national and site levels

The structure of the co-ordinating and management body for MIKE in West Africa was discussed with input from all the participating countries. The proposed structure at all levels is summarized in the diagram below, but it was recognized that this structure would have to be largely compatible with similar structures in other sub-regions:

3.3.3 Roles and responsibilities

Mr. Hunter also reviewed the respective roles and responsibilities at the different levels.

The roles to be played by the site manager and the national focal points, if separate from the former, are outlined as follows.

SITE OFFICER

Oversee collection of data as agreed under MIKE protocols

Oversee compilation of data into monitoring and annual report

Manage the data compilation and analysis at site level and transit to national level

Provide and maintain the support for keeping the site teams and equipment operational

Assist in identifying training needs and in arranging training opportunities

Provide feedback on protocol deficiencies and other constraints and bottlenecks

The executive committee of the Sub-regional Steering Group was nominated by the participants. This committee is made up of four members, each from a different country. It was decided that the members of the committee should be chosen taking the language and habitat factors into account as follows:

Francophone countries in the savanna area (2 representatives)

Countries in the forest area (1 representative)

Anglophone countries (1 representative)

The agreed members of the first executive committee were chosen as follows:

M. John Mshelbwala, Nigeria

Jean Y. Tessi, Benin

Yaya Tamboura, Mali

Côte d’Ivoire (member still to be nominated by the country)

M. John Mshelbwala and Jean T. Tessi were nominated by their peers as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee, respectively.

It was further agreed that the procedure for renewal of the committee will be decided at the next regional meeting.

Interim Site Officers and Interim Focal Points for the Sub-Regional Steering Committee were also named by the representatives. These persons will act in an interim capacity until official confirmation is received in writing from the respective governments. Their names were provided to the CITES Secretariat.

NEXT STEPS

The following list outlines the next steps that need to be taken towards the full implementation of MIKE in Sub-region:

Range States

Formally nominate Site Officers, in writing

Formally nominate National Officers/National Focal Points, in writing

Define the mandate of the Executive Committee (next meeting of full Steering Committee)

Director of the MIKE Central Coordination Unit

Get Sub-Regional Support Coordinator in place

Get all protocols harmonised

The participants at the meeting will work together to:

Discuss implementation at site level

Establish a good communication process

Attend the first training workshop for Site Officers (and National Officers where appropriate)

Start implementation

Sign Memoranda of Understanding between CITES and the range State governments on MIKE implementation in West Africa

Annex 1

List of Participants to the Meeting on MIKE, 19 - 21 February 2001, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso